The Law on Clubbing of Multiple FIRs

The earliest information given to the police which sets the investigation in motion, and is reduced to writing by the latter is known as the “first information report” or FIR, though that term is not mentioned in the Code¹.² The object of recording the FIR is to put into writing the statement of the informant before his memory fails or before he gets time and opportunity to embellish it.³ The registering of an FIR sets the machinery of criminal law in motion and marks the commencement of the investigation which ends in with the formation of opinion under Section 169⁴ or Section 170⁵ of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) eventually leading to a police report under Section 173⁶ CrPC.

Legality of multiple FIRs lodged on the same cause of action against a person

The Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 does not put a bar to the lodging of FIR against a person on the same set of facts or occurrences nor does it lay down a straigtjacket formula to consolidate or club multiple FIRs lodged against such person. However, a Division Bench of the Supreme Court in T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala⁷ while keeping a just balance between the fundamental rights under Articles 19⁸ and 21⁹ of the Constitution and the expansive power of the police to investigate a cognizable offence has opined that:

20. … there can be no second FIR and no fresh investigation on receipt of every subsequent information in respect of the same cognizable offences or same occurrence giving rise to one or more cognizable offence, only the earliest or the first information in regard to the commission of a cognizable offence satisfies the requirements of Section 154¹⁰ CrPC.¹¹

Another Division Bench of the Supreme Court also took a similar view that the filing of second FIR on the basis of the given facts and circumstances of the first FIR is unwarranted and violative of fundamental rights under Articles 14¹², 20¹³ and 21 of the Constitution, instead filing of a supplementary charge-sheet in this regard would suffice the issue.¹⁴

The Supreme Court in Arnab Ranjan Goswami v. Union of India¹⁵ relying on T.T. Antony¹⁶ observed that:

if the Court were to conclude in the affirmative when two or more FIRs that relates to the same incident or to the incidents which form part of the same transactions, the subsequent FIRs are liable to be quashed. However, where the subsequent FIRs relate to different incidents or crimes or is in the form of a counterclaim, investigation may proceed.

In Amish Devgan v. Union of India¹⁷ the Supreme Court while dealing with a similar issue of multiplicity of FIRs, reiterated the principles laid down in T.T. Antony¹⁸ and Arnab¹⁹ and opined that:

the principle underlying Section 186 CrPC²⁰ can be applied at the pre-charge-sheet stage, that is, post registration of FIR but before charge-sheet is submitted to the Magistrate. In such cases ordinarily the first FIR, that is, the FIR registered first in point of time, should be treated as the main FIR and others as statements under Section 162 CrPC²¹. However, in exceptional cases and for good reasons, it will be open to the High Court or this Court, as the case may be, to treat the subsequently registered FIR as the principal FIR. However, this should not cause any prejudice, inconvenience or harassment to either the victims, witnesses or the person who is accused.

The same exposition was followed by a Division Bench where it opined that multiplicity of the proceedings will not be in the larger public interest and directed the clubbing of all the FIRs by exercising its power under Article 142²² of the Constitution of India.²³

A second FIR for the same incident cannot be registered as the language of Section 154 provides inbuilt safeguards similar to the principle of double jeopardy and rule of fair investigation which prevents the abuse of power by the investigating agency.²⁴ The Court has to lay down the consequence test and determine that if an offence forming part of the second FIR arises as a consequence of the offence alleged in the first FIR, then offence covered by both the FIRs are the same and, accordingly, the second FIR will be impermissible in law. In other words, the offences covered in both the FIRs shall have to be treated as a part of the first FIR.²⁵

The test of sameness is to be applied while examining subsequent FIRs relating to the same incidents

It is a well-settled position of law that judicial discretion depends on facts and circumstances of each case. The Court while deciding multiplicity of FIR must determine the test of sameness with utmost judicial parity. The Supreme Court has held that the test of sameness is to be applied to find out whether both the FIRs relate to the same incident in respect of the same occurrence or are in regard to the incidents which are two or more parts of the same transaction. If affirmative, the second FIR is liable to be quashed. However, in case the contrary is proved and the version in the second FIR is different with respect to two different incidents/crimes, the second FIR is permissible.²⁶ The concept of sameness has been given a restricted meaning. It does not encompass filing of a counter FIR relating to the same or connected cognizable offence.²⁷ The Court has to rationalise the facts and circumstances and then apply the test of “sameness” to find out whether both FIRs are related to the same incident and the same occurrence, or they are about incidents that relate entirely to two different occurrences or two or more segments of the same transaction.²⁸

When can a subsequent FIR be registered against the same person

The Supreme Court has held that distinct versions in respect of the same episode can give rise to multiple FIRs and a counter-complaint for the same is permissible under law.

If the subsequent complaints are not in relation to the same offence or occurrence or do not pertain to the same party as alleged on the first report then on that ground, the subsequent complaint need not be quashed.²⁹ To club multiple FIRs arising out of different cause of action under the provisions of not only the Penal Code, 1860³⁰ but also different State enactments would be impermissible under law.³¹ The Supreme Court has also drawn a line of distinction between “same offence” and “same kind of offence”. If the “same kind of offence” is committed multiples times, during each time of the commission of the offence, it would constitute to a separate offence leading to multiple FIRs which would be maintainable.³² If the alleged offences under the second FIR in substance are similar from the offences under the first FIR and cannot be said in the form of the part of same transaction with the alleged offences under the first FIR³³ or because it has different versions of the same incident but also when new discoveries are made by the police authorities at a subsequent stage on factual foundations about a larger conspiracy, the subsequent FIR is maintainable.³⁴

The police have the authority to register a second FIR when new discovery is made during investigation especially if it includes guilty persons who are not mentioned in the first FIR. To quash the subsequent FIR merely on the ground that final report for the first FIR has been submitted would be very technical and defeat the ultimate object of investigation.³⁵ If the law laid down by the Court in T.T. Antony case³⁶ in holding that a second complaint with regard to the same incident filed as a counter-complaint is prohibited is accepted then, such conclusion would lead to serious consequences as rival versions in respect of the same incident do take different shapes and in that event, registration of two FIRs would be permissible.³⁷

A recent judgment of the Supreme Court while abiding by the principles laid down by the precedents earlier observed that when the second FIR is a counter-complaint or presents a rival version of set of facts, the said FIR cannot be permissible to be quashed under law as quashing of the FIR would nip the investigation into such corruption in the bud which would be against the interest of society.³⁸

Conclusion

There has been growing fashion of people lodging multiple FIRs against politicians, religious persons, comedians, actors, journalists, etc. in different part of the States for their controversial statements and acts. Recently, the Supreme Court while dealing with one of such cases has granted interim protection and has further stayed the lodging of any other FIR on the same set of allegations.³⁹

Thus, the legal recourse laid down by the Supreme Court in numerous precedents is an example of how the courts should scrutinise with the greatest judicial conscience when it pertains to adjudicating multiplicity of FIRs registered against a person on the same cause of action. It is the moral duty of the Court to ensure effective administration of justice and abide by the principles of the salutary maxim “parium eadem est ratio, idem jus” that means “of things equal, the reason and the law is the same”.⁴⁰